ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 22, 1974
    )
    DONALD F. CONAWAY
    )
    -I
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 74-282
    )
    )
    EDWARD PATTON, JR.
    )
    DISSENTING OPINION (by Mr. Dumelle)
    My reason for dissenting in this
    case
    is the inadequacy
    of the complaint. The complaint filed July 26, 1974 asks
    WHEREFORE, the Complainant requests an
    investigation to be made and if violations
    are found to exist the proper proceedings
    be instituted
    No mention is made in the complaint that Mr. Patton may
    become liable to large penalties or to a cease and desist
    order. One must read the complaint with the Environmental
    Protection Act to see these implied penalties, There is
    no proof of service of the Act itself upon’Mr. Patton.
    The testimony shows that Mr. Patton, among other acts~
    brougit in bags of beer cans upon his bicycle to his home for
    resale and recycling. The picture, then, is one of someone
    too impecunious to afford an auto or pickup truck, who is
    attempting to earn some money by laudably recycling beer cans.
    Someone who cannot afford an auto can probably not afford an
    attorney and indeed in this case represented himself. Did he
    understand that he might be liable to penalties and to a cease
    and desist order? I think not.
    The complaint is not clear and does not give proper notice
    to the respondent, Mr. Patton, of the possible consequences
    of this action against him. I feel that a State’s Attorney
    (the complainant) could have drawn a better complaint.
    I would have dismissed this action because of the inadequacy
    of the complaint
    C
    14—503
    —2-
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, hereby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was
    submitted on the
    ~
    day of November, 1974.
    Christan L. Moffet /lQlerk
    Illinois Pollution ~&ntrol Board
    14—504

    Back to top